The Abortion Thread Ex Ultra!

[Burning Zeppelin]

Zaper lives in Australia, and the scientists here in Australia don't count for much. Plus, some scientists have their own morals you realize.
Eriol youre an idiot. Having a painful death penalty could ultimately make you worse then them. First, if you killed someone for some reason (stole money, killed your wife...) yet the gov forces you to die, then who is worse? Well, it depends on how many you killed. Plus, the point of death penalty is to get rid of you, not really punish you.
Silvercry, ask your wife, if she had a boyfriend and he pregnated her, what would she do if she didn't want it. We need a womens point of view here people, and the only female I can think if is Dragoness.

[Silvercry]

I only have a second, so I must be swift:

Exodus: Scores of children are adopted everyday.  Newborns have a better chance of being adopted instantly, before they even leave the hospital.  I cannot tell you the number of times I watched people I know chose adoption over abortion, and the process was complete no longer then two days after birth.  By your logic, they should of had to wait until all the kids ahead of them were adopted.  Since I know this not to be true, your point is proven moot.  Yes there will always be more kids looking for parents then there are parents looking for kids.  That does not mean its not an option.  If America would get its head out of its ass and let homosexual couples adopt, that would open up a whole lot more homes.

Population control through abortion?  Good luck with that.

I'm not sure what you mean by safer sex "polices".  When I took sex ed, they told me all about condoms, pills, shots, spermincide, foams, etc, etc.  The main thing I got out of that is none of them are 100% effective.  I agree that teaching abstinence only is wrong way to go.  But that doesn’t change the fact that if your trying not to have kids, not having sex is the best option

Zaperking: I challenge you to leave God out of your arguments. Deal in facts, not faith.  

Burning Zeppelin: I cant ask my wife that question right now, but I already know the answer, as I was her first boyfriend (we are high school sweethearts).  Unless she was raped, it wouldn’t have happened, because she did not believe in having sex before marriage.  See how that works?

Must go.  Long day ahead of me.

[Mystik3eb]

Adoption really is a special thing that needs more support. Personally I'm still not sure how I feel about gay marriage and all that...I'm still trying to work that out with myself, including gay adoptions.

Anyway I could've answered your question, BZ. I have a mom, three sisters, and 11 aunts, all of whom wouldn't personally abort, though some (being liberal) are pro-choice, while the others (being conservative) are pro-choice, but anti-abortion (don't ask me how that works...haha).

(Oh, and none of my extended family are Mormon, in case you're wondering)

[Exodus]

I only have a second, so I must be swift:

Exodus: Scores of children are adopted everyday.  Newborns have a better chance of being adopted instantly, before they even leave the hospital.  I cannot tell you the number of times I watched people I know chose adoption over abortion, and the process was complete no longer then two days after birth.  By your logic, they should of had to wait until all the kids ahead of them were adopted.  Since I know this not to be true, your point is proven moot.  Yes there will always be more kids looking for parents then there are parents looking for kids.  That does not mean its not an option.  If America would get its head out of its ass and let homosexual couples adopt, that would open up a whole lot more homes.

Population control through abortion?  Good luck with that.

I'm not sure what you mean by safer sex "polices".  When I took sex ed, they told me all about condoms, pills, shots, spermincide, foams, etc, etc.  The main thing I got out of that is none of them are 100% effective.  I agree that teaching abstinence only is wrong way to go.  But that doesn’t change the fact that if your trying not to have kids, not having sex is the best option

     No, my point is not moot. There are more children than there are adults. Therefore, there are fewer people willing to adopt than there are children waiting to be adopted. Thus, you have a surplus of children, and while in most cases, a surplus would be a good thing, it isn't a good thing when the surplus continues to rise, and when said rising creates opposition for other children.

These are children we're talking about. They've waited long enough for a family. Why should an unborn, unhuman fetus be given presidence over a child waiting to go somewhere in the world?

And shame on you for suggesting that people should refrain from having sex. What you have just implied is that you believe that people should not be given the choice to have consensual, perfectly legal sex. Condoms exist specifically for this purpose, and I don't see why you feel you have the right to pass judgement on these people.

Now, I'm not sure where you got the idea that I supported population control through abortion, since I never stated anything of the sort. I simply don't believe that a fetus should be allowed to develop any further, if the mother so chooses, and I do not believe that adoption is a viable option, AT THIS TIME, due to the extreme stress on the adoption system. Adoptions happen everyday? That's true. But there are more orphans created every day. If these fetuses were given the chance to develop into humans, adopting parents would be more willing to take the baby over the child who has been waiting for four years.

I've stated my stance before; you continue to dodge the issue I'm throwing out. Fetuses do not fit into any of the categories of life:

1. Self-sustainability
2. Sentience
3. Perseverance (the will to live)

It's a bit like building a house: You've laid the foundation, but until it's complete, it isn't a house. Likewise, a fetus has the potential to become a human, but it is not yet a human. I've seen a fetus refered to as a possessive "it".  Now, since the mother sustains the fetus, and the fetus is not yet living, it can and will be argued that a fetus is owned by the mother, in much the same way I own my computer. If I choose to throw away my computer, are you going to stop me?

Get off your high horse, fellow; it isn't your call.

[Burning Zeppelin]

It's a bit like building a house: You've laid the foundation, but until it's complete, it isn't a house. Likewise, a fetus has the potential to become a human, but it is not yet a human. I've seen a fetus refered to as a possessive "it".  Now, since the mother sustains the fetus, and the fetus is not yet living, it can and will be argued that a fetus is owned by the mother, in much the same way I own my computer. If I choose to throw away my computer, are you going to stop me?

Now we come to the part, whether there is something called life at all. Is a fetus living, or is it just potential. An incomplete house is still a house per se, but not a home. Just like how an unborn fetus is not alive (supposedly) but is still human. Now that home, which someone would live in, is blocking a potential highway. Now, would it be right to knock down the incomplete house for the highway. That highway would let people have an easier route, but the people who own the house don't want to, because it looks upon a beautiful view and next to transport. OK, I might not be making sense, but it IS connected.

[Radical_Dreamer]

It's a bit like building a house: You've laid the foundation, but until it's complete, it isn't a house. Likewise, a fetus has the potential to become a human, but it is not yet a human. I've seen a fetus refered to as a possessive "it".  Now, since the mother sustains the fetus, and the fetus is not yet living, it can and will be argued that a fetus is owned by the mother, in much the same way I own my computer. If I choose to throw away my computer, are you going to stop me?

Now we come to the part, whether there is something called life at all. Is a fetus living, or is it just potential. An incomplete house is still a house per se, but not a home. Just like how an unborn fetus is not alive (supposedly) but is still human. Now that home, which someone would live in, is blocking a potential highway. Now, would it be right to knock down the incomplete house for the highway. That highway would let people have an easier route, but the people who own the house don't want to, because it looks upon a beautiful view and next to transport. OK, I might not be making sense, but it IS connected.

I disagree. An unborn fetus is alive from the moment of conception, but it is not human until it is sentient. That is why I support the right to abortion up until that point. We all know that we have to kill to survive, and it's been shown that human DNA alone does not a human make. A bold claim, I realize, but I can back it up with the odd case of Henrietta Lacks:

http://www.jhu.edu/~jhumag/0400web/01.html

[Lord J Esq]

Isn't it interesting that the same right-wing fanatic, in his or her opposition to abortion on the basis of destroying "human life," has no scruples whatsoever about supporting measures to cut medical benefits and other social assistance programs. The embryonic clump of dividing cells so vigorously championed as a human being by the religious right--unlike the many sentient, functional humans who will die deprived of medical care (not to mention food and shelter against inclement weather)--has no sentience, no experiences, no consciousness, no arms, legs, dreams, gender, affective capacity, or established family relationships. It is also interesting to note that a large percentage of children from unwanted pregnancies grow up to become impoverished, ill-educated people whose ability to adequately provide for themselves and their children with the bare necessities of life is so sorely limited that the cutting of social services is tantamount to killing these people off, in a prolonged and agonizing way, while dragging on society at every step. Cutting health care, or providing abortion: Which one is really murder?

In case you think I'm just making this stuff up, have a look at the Republican "culture of life" in its most brutal form:

The Senate approved sweeping deficit-reduction legislation last night that would save about $35 billion over the next five years by cutting federal spending on prescription drugs, agriculture supports and student loans, while clamping down on fraud in the Medicaid program. [...]

The focus now shifts to the House, where the Budget Committee voted 21 to 16 yesterday to approve a more extensive bill saving nearly $54 billion through 2010 with cuts to Medicaid, food stamps, student loans, agriculture subsidies and child support enforcement. The House measure would allow states to impose premiums and co-payments on poor Medicaid recipients for the first time.

And guess what item is scheduled to be taken up for debate in the House very soon after this vote? A $70 billion tax cut! But...it's a tax cut for the poor, right? Yeah, right. And I'm the tooth fairy.

My position is a mirror opposite of the nightmarish GOP belief. In opposing abortion and opposing social infrastructure, Republicans want to oppress women and murder the poor. I want exactly the opposite: I want everybody to have the same chance to succeed as our society is able to provide to the most well-to-do among us. I want women to be as free as I am, and I want society to protect rather than destroy the weakest among us.

I was doing some data entry this past week for an organization that helps poor folks get health insurance. The company had sent out comment cards for people to advise the governor about her low-income health care plans. I got to type these comments up as they came back. Nearly all of them came from people across the state who had fallen through just about every societal crack I could think of, and a few I hadn't, or from those people who sympathize with the plight of the uninsured. By and large these were the pleas of hardworking people or retired seniors who can't make it in our failed health care system because they don't have enough money for health insurance. These folks, without the low-income insurance programs in Washington State, would have to go without health care entirely. Furthermore, by not treating their ailments, their sicknesses become much worse, and, before dying early at the hands of treatable sicknesses, they eventually have no choice but to seek emergency care, which at that point can be expensive enough to bankrupt even an affluent middle-class family. So many of the comments I typed in fell into just three categories:

• Health care is a human right.
• Many hardworking or retired people cannot afford health care.
• A lack of health insurance costs society more in the long run.[/list:u]All undeniably true. But every once in a while, this flood of pleas for the (Democratic) governor to honor her campaign promise to expand basic health care services would be interspersed by a mean-spirited Republican who whined about the tax burden or ridiculed the integrity of the governor. Juxtaposed with the pleas of so many disenfranchised people, these hateful remarks made them look exactly as rotten as they truly are. But, if you will permit me an example to connect to the point of this post, I was surprised to see that, of the unflattering comments that came back to us--again, mostly from the Republican east of the state--the majority were full of hate for illegal immigrants, who they believe to be a drain on the health care system for such villainous reasons as they can walk into an emergy room without a dollar to their name and still be treated. So here's my point, expressed in the form of a hypothetic exchange with a GOP minion:
  
  GOP: I hate illegal immigrants. I pay taxes and they don't. Why should they receive even the shittiest health care?
  
  Josh: Most illegal immigrants do pay taxes. These are withheld from their wages by their employers automatically. And even though many of these people live below the poverty line and would thus be eligible for a tax refund, because they are illegal immigrants, they cannot file tax returns each year, and thus are ineligible to reclaim anything due them. This constitutes an important revenue stream for the government. The least we can do is offer basic health care to anyone within our borders.
  
  GOP: They came here illegally. They don't deserve anything.
  
  Josh: So we should just let them die, then? Even though we can prevent this by paying a few dollars a month in additional taxes?
  
  GOP: Yep.[/list:u]I'll bet you thought I was just being rhetorical when I said Republicans support murder. But they really do. That's the sort of thing I was reading on the comment cards from actual people in my state--a state much more liberal than, say, Texas. It just goes to show how morally bankrupt the Republican Party truly is. And don't think I'm not going to exempt any individual who supports this party: If you are against health care for the poorest people in our society, you are in favor of murder. And if you take this position because you don't like paying taxes, you are supporting murder for the purpose of satisfying your own greed.
  
  The main purpose of this post is to highly the lack of credibility of Republicans who oppose abortion on the grounds that it is murder, but then turn around and support real murder by opposing social spending. However, there are any number of additional lessons to be taken from this. I think the most interesting of them is that making abortion less accessible increases the burden on our social infrastructure by bringing more "wretched indigents" into the world.
  
  What do we have here? We have that the unborn are either not human at all, or are so marginally human as to make the distinction arbitrary. We have that the Republicans are hypocrites in opposing abortion on the grounds that it is murder--(The real reason they oppose abortion is due to any combination of personal, institutional, or latent sexism against women.)--even though their political ideology supports murder anyway. (And, in addition to GOP domestic policies, do I even need to get into our administration's foreign policy?) We have that the Republicans are greedy and want to save themselves money by cutting social services, even though by denying the sick access to basic health coverage, we cost society more in the long run when those sicknesses grow worse. Simply put, we have that the Republicans are murderous, lying, self-deluded, sexist, hypocritical, greedy fools.
  
  If you are a past GOP voter, motivated by fiscal restraint, wise, well executed foreign policy, accountability, responsibility, and small government; if those are your issues, that party simply no longer exists.[/list:u]And that's the Memo.
  
  </J. O'Reilly>

[Exodus]

It's a bit like building a house: You've laid the foundation, but until it's complete, it isn't a house. Likewise, a fetus has the potential to become a human, but it is not yet a human. I've seen a fetus refered to as a possessive "it".  Now, since the mother sustains the fetus, and the fetus is not yet living, it can and will be argued that a fetus is owned by the mother, in much the same way I own my computer. If I choose to throw away my computer, are you going to stop me?

Now we come to the part, whether there is something called life at all. Is a fetus living, or is it just potential. An incomplete house is still a house per se, but not a home. Just like how an unborn fetus is not alive (supposedly) but is still human. Now that home, which someone would live in, is blocking a potential highway. Now, would it be right to knock down the incomplete house for the highway. That highway would let people have an easier route, but the people who own the house don't want to, because it looks upon a beautiful view and next to transport. OK, I might not be making sense, but it IS connected.

I was the one to propagate that statement, not our dear friend silvercy.

[Zizzlebop]

I had the idea of paying women to have abortions, then takeing the fetus and selling them in decrotive jars on Ebay. So, I guess I vote yes.

[saridon]

I had the idea of paying women to have abortions, then takeing the fetus and selling them in decrotive jars on Ebay. So, I guess I vote yes.

i had the idea of hunting down all the stupid f&(*en spammers 'looks in Zizzlebobs direction' well hello there 'brings out some kind of weapon'

(if i'm being harsh its cause its godamn hot in sydney and the heat gets to you)

[Radical_Dreamer]

If you are a past GOP voter, motivated by fiscal restraint, wise, well executed foreign policy, accountability, responsibility, and small government; if those are your issues, that party simply no longer exists.[/list:u]And that's the Memo.

We're called Libertarians. Small, efficient government that provides for national security, a police system, a court system, etc. The systems neccisary to prevent people from victimizing each other. Mind you, various Libertarians take these (and the other Libertarian) principles to various degrees (I myself being moderate), but if you want a smaller government and none of the overbearing religious influence, there is a party for you.

[Lord J Esq]

Touché.

[Mystik3eb]

After talking to some people, I've decided that I'd still support enforcing adoption over abortion. Yes, there are an overwhelming amount of children who are homeless, but there a boatload of people waiting for a baby to be born for them to adopt. Letting them adopt the baby doesn't make the other childrens' situations any worse. Couples know what they want already, and having fewer babies born will not help out the other children for the most part.

And I'm still not in favor of letting people just sleep around, which is a 'right' by all means but not an action that lies without consequence, and just let them escape the natural responsibilities. I don't care that's it women who are pregnant, I'd say the same thing if it were males. Unless you have sex without your reproductive systems disabled, then you can't go in and expect to always evade the chance of birth. It's just not right. You can't steal and always expect to get away. You can't smoke and expect not to die much sooner as a result. You can't drink and not expect to possibly get drunk, and you can't get drunk and not expect to possibly do something incredibly stupid, like kill yourself, or kill others.

Here's another thought of mine on abortion. After discussing it with others, I came to a new opinion. If the child is at a point where it can survive without the mother, then it should not be aborted. You can take a 'fetus' a couple weeks before birth out of the womb and it'll still survive. Granted, it's not as likely, but it's past the point of complete dependence on the mother, and therefore should be considered self-sustaining, as Exodus puts it. And who's to say when the 'fetus' begins being sentient? We really don't know. Do we believe that we aren't sentient the moment we're born? If not, why not? Our minds are taking in the information of the world around us, the people, the environments, the bodily functions, the air, the texture of physical things, all that. When it's collected enough, we finally start to crawl. When it's collected enough, we finally start to talk, or at least make noises outside of crying/screaming/"goo goo ga ga gee gee". When it's collected enough, we finally start to walk. Then experience and teachings about things we don't discover for ourselves really take precedence, though they had an effect earlier on, too. But at this point, learning from experience is still the most effective form, and assures us of the "truth" and "fact" of it.

We really don't know when the fetus becomes sentient, it could be once the brain is developed enough to send impulses through nerves or whatever. Not sure about fetus growth, but yeah. So I consider the baby alive as soon as it's self-sustaining.

And honestly, abortion after this (like partial-birth abortion, which is fucking sick, btw)? Could you look at this baby, see the incredible pure innocence, the new life, the wonderful tenderness of a human being starting completely fresh, and say "Ok, kill it"? Honestly?

I won't get in the way of pro-abortion votes, but I'm not in support of it. I'm in support of enforcing responsibility. People always end up being happier when they're kept from doing things that will end in their unhappiness, or the unhappiness of others. Some say that isn't living. I say that's bullshit. You don't need to "try everything". If you can see the results based on what happened to others who participated in whatever action is in question, that should be good enough for you. If it's not good enough, then you'd better be willing to accept the responsibility of your actions.

[/opinion of non-religionist]

I also find myself to agree more and more with Libertarianism the more I hear about it

[SilentMartyr]

And I'm still not in favor of letting people just sleep around, which is a 'right' by all means but not an action that lies without consequence, and just let them escape the natural responsibilities. I don't care that's it women who are pregnant, I'd say the same thing if it were males. Unless you have sex without your reproductive systems disabled, then you can't go in and expect to always evade the chance of birth. It's just not right. You can't steal and always expect to get away. You can't smoke and expect not to die much sooner as a result. You can't drink and not expect to possibly get drunk, and you can't get drunk and not expect to possibly do something incredibly stupid, like kill yourself, or kill others.

What the hell are you talking about? That is the most ignorant statement about drinking have EVER heard. I have gotten drunk countless times, and yet have a clean criminal record. No murders or attempted suicides. Weird? No, that is normal. You need to open your eyes instead of believing what your elders tell you all the time.

[Mystik3eb]

I put the word "possibly" in there for a reason, buddy. It has happened. Way too much.

Edit: I forgot something, about the self-sustaining. I have a cousin, now 12 years old, who was born at only 6 months of pregnancy, at 1lb. She's still around, though she had a multitude of physical handicaps for years and still has a speech impediment. She's still a bit slow of mind, but not really "stupid", and is physically rather capable these days. I doubt her problems was simply a result of leaving the womb so early, there was something already wrong with her, or else she wouldn't have been born 3 months early. The only thing wrong with her as a result of being born so early was the size of her lungs; she was completely reliant on equipment to help her breathe, since her lungs were too weak to help themselves, but otherwise she was fine. And if being reliant on equipment to help keep oneself alive means they aren't self-sustaining, then why do we consider loads of our elderly (and others) alive?

Oh, and about this sentence in my earlier post:

Unless you have sex without your reproductive systems disabled, then you can't go in and expect to always evade the chance of birth.

I would replace birth with conception. My mistake.